urge parliamentary scrutiny of the state within a state of the Khakis, especially the dreaded spy agency (DGFI). The interference of the Khakis into state politics will once again jeopardize institutionalization of elective democracy, good governance and secularism. The rogues fear social justice activists, critics, politicians and journalists too - Joy Manush!

Sunday, August 31, 2014

A Retrogressive Policy

In any conflict between free media and
government, the latter wins in the short run while the former wins in the end.
But a lot of valuable nation building time is lost in the intermittent period.

Government wins initially because it has
all the fund and coercive machinery of state at its disposal to cajole, bribe,
intimidate, threat and intern people and force its way.

Freedom and free media win in the end
because people rally behind them-which is necessarily a time consuming process-
and take them to victory.

This lesson of history our government does
not seem to have learnt at their great cost and tragically ours too.

Free media has been one of the most
significant gains of independent Bangladesh. It flourished after the
restoration of democracy in December 1991. Today Bangladesh has a healthy media
environment which is free, responsible and competitive.

Why a new Broadcast Policy?

Of the total media scene, the recent growth
of Bangladesh’s broadcast media has been brilliant and stunning. Yes, it has
many more hurdles to cross but the progress the broadcast media has made in the
last two decades is nothing short of a miracle. Television has changed the way
public is habituated to get news. Their “Live” coverage is now widely
appreciated by the people and has added to the accountability process of the
government. I recall with pride how our TV journalists earned the appreciation
of the people of Bangladesh by giving round the clock coverage of all the
recent mega events including that of Rana Plaza tragedy that helped to create a
global support for our RMG sector. Broadcast media’s live and “from the spot”
coverage has brought in a new freshness to news that the public would never
have got otherwise.

There is a similar story of the FM radio.

On-line and digital media platforms’ story
is slightly mixed, and cannot be covered in the present paper.

All this was achieved without the recently
proposed “policy”. TV stations and FM radios were guided by the existing laws,
policies, especially the guidelines given during issuing the broadcasting
license. So if the existing rules and guidelines helped to create the TV and
radio “revolutions” then why go for any new policy, especially when it runs the
risk of thwarting the growth process. The only justification of a new policy
can be that it will help the “growth of broadcasting industry” even further.

The government says that it was initiated
at the request of the journalists’ community. This is a fact. But the demand
was for a policy to be formulated by an Independent Broadcast Commission in
consultation with all the stake holders especially media practitioners and owners.
It was never conceived to be formulated by the bureaucrats with cosmetic representation
from stake holders whose suggestions were ultimately largely ignored.

The Broadcast Policy

As the gazette notification shows there are
seven main sections (অধ্যায়) of the broadcast policy.

The section on “aims and purpose” (উদ্দেশ্যওলক্ষ্য)
incorporate some core values that we share. The first five items from 1.2.1
upto 1.2.5 we welcome and endorse. However we feel that it has been unduly
prolonged and there are many items that can either be deleted or merged with
others.

The second sections deals with the
Licensing process which says a detailed guideline on the licensing process will
be worked by the Broadcast Commission as and when it is setup.

Sections three, four and five deal with
content of the media channels. These sections have nearly 70 items.

The policy goes into details of content
much of which can be subjected to multiple interpretations that can easily lead
to distorting a free flow of information. Take for example section 3.2.1 which
says “ anti-state and anti-public interest” news cannot be broadcast. We could
not agree more. But who will decide what constitutes “anti-state and anti-public
interest” news. In dictatorships, the government decides but democracy it is left
to the media under the overarching principles of the constitution of every
country.

Take the next provision 3.2.2. which says
in “discussion programmes distorted or false information” should not be given.
This any Broadcasting station worth its names will do on their own, as they do
now.

Item 3.2.3 …….. We already broadcast
speeches of the President and the Prime Minister. Why should there be the other
impositions like emergency weather, health bulletin, press note and other
“important national events that have public interest” Again anything of public
interest the broadcasters will use because they want to hold their audience. So
there is no need for such provisions.

3.5.1. says ……” voluntary work and
development activities will have to be broadcast”

Why? Each channel will chose content
according to its audience. Why should similar content be imposed on all
channels?

The policy goes into details of such items
as “Development work” “entertainment programmes” “sports and educational
programmes etc.

One very dangerous aspect of the policy is
the restrictions it imposes on advertising contents. While there must be
guidelines on what can and what cannot be advertised, but the specific
guidelines given in the policy will heavily restrict the flow of advertisement,
affecting revenue of the broadcasters leading to weakening their financial
viability. At present no advertisement is carried by TV stations that can be
said to have necessitated such a policy.

Under section six deals with “other issues
dealing with Broadcasting. This section contains some dangerous elements that
can lead to restrictions on freedom of the media. Here are some examples along
with our comments.

Item 5.1.4 (Print Bangla version) Any
“military, non-military and government information” that can threaten the security
of the State cannot be broadcast.

We can understand “military” information
but why “non-military and government information” cannot be published.

Item 5.1.5 (print Bangla version) Anything demeaning to the armed forces, law
enforcement agencies and government officials who can punish people for
criminal offences can't be broadcast.

Imagine the absurdity of this policy. If it
was already in place then we could not have written about the ten trucks arms
haul where NSI and DGFI (according to confessions of accused) officials were
directly involved.

We also could not have written about the 21
August attempted assassination of the present PM in which three former IGPs, two
ex-NSI bosses and three former CID officials and high ranking officials of army
and navy against whom charges have been framed.

According to policy approved by the cabinet
we cannot write about death in police custody or torture, abuse of power by military,
RAB, DGFI, intelligence agencies and government officials who can
"punish". If this law is enforced then we can never write about cases
like the recent 7 murders in Narayanganj where RAB officials were involved, the
recent killing of a garment waste trader who was tortured to death by Mirpur
Thana SI. We cannot report incidences of cross-fire, torture in remand, etc.

Would Limon – the innocent school boy who
was bullet hit by RAB and who the latter tried for months to stigmatize as a
terrorist- have ever received justice if media did not expose the RAB?

But what is meant by "chaos" and
"violent incidents". According to this policy we cannot cover unrest
or show footage of violence. It appears that this policy expects the TV stations
to broadcast song and dance episodes while political activist uproot railway
lines, burn our factories. So the extensive footage showing the opposition
BNP-Jamaat throwing fire bombs into running buses during pre- 2014 election
violence was all“wrong” and the so-called “loggi- Baitha”
related violence of the AL during their movement in 2006 would not allowed in
the future?

In the context of our politics it is always
the opposition that organizes agitational programmes that often results into
violent clashes with the law enforcement agencies. To prevent its coverage will
mean basically no coverage of opposition because it will depict“chaos” and “violence”. Would coverage of the recent police action
against workers demanding area pay that resulted into police beating them be
permitted under the present policy?

5.1.7( use Bangla) Broadcasting anything
that may hamper friendly relations with foreign countries is to be BANNED.

If this law existed then we couldn't have
covered Myanmar’s sending warships to threaten our Navy that was protecting our
maritime boundary back in 2007/8. We couldn't have covered the
"Felany" incident or the regular incidents (now significantly
lessoned) of border killing by Indian BSF. Is writing about our due share of
Teesta Water and criticising India for responding to be permitted? Or it would
be banned in the name of jeopardizing our friendly relations.

By the same law we could not have covered
the news of killing, torture, rape, or illegal detention of our expatriate
workers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia or any of the foreign countries where
they work in the name of “friendly relations”. So all our expatriate workers,
on whose remittance we flout the story of "huge reserve" are to be
left at the mercy of whims and good wishes of host governments and our most
timid and sometimes corrupt commercial attaches?

4.2.8 ( use Bangla) No scene can be shown
in advertisements that are not environmentally friendly.

What is wrong with advertisement showing
polluted rivers, uncollected garbage, or cutting of tree and urging people to desist
from such practices?

6. Misleading and untrue information must
be avoided. About “untrue” information, of course they should be avoided. If by
chance unverified information is broadcast then immediate corrective steps are
taken along with appropriate apology.

About "misleading" information
can we match what goes in the name of debate inside the parliament? More often
than not, it is the government and not the broadcasters that indulge in half
truths and sometimes outright lies.

The truth is the Broadcast Policy passed by
the cabinet has had two mindsets working behind it. One is that of bureaucracy
who never feel comfortable with the free media.

Now that they have become more partisan
than ever and see their future more in sycophancy and less in merit, they
prefer a gagged press that will be less prone to doing investigative
journalism.

The other mindset is of a political party
that sees an “enemy” behind every critical voice. It feels vulnerable to a free
spirited media culture and is foolishly moving towards throttling it.

Attitude towards a free media as expressed
in the policy is counter to history and the unrelenting march forward of the
human spirit that only freedom can fulfill. This policy totally misjudges and
is completely under valuing the contribution that the free media have made in
Bangladesh's growth over the last three decades under democracy.

Here I would like to draw the government’s
attention to the writings of Amartya Sen who has brilliantly articulated how
freedom, especially that of the media, assist the process of development. His
classic work “Freedom and Development” should be an eye opener to those who
have formulated this policy.

Under the section “Miscellaneous” the
following provisions need to be examined.

7.1. It says each broadcasting organisation
will have to prepare a “charter of duties” and“editorial policy” in light
of the present policy announced by the government and nothing the broadcasting
channels can do which will be in contradiction with it. After preparing such
“charter” and “policy” the broadcasting bodies will have to have them
“approved” by the broadcast commission, which will be set up in the future.
While waiting the setting up of the commission, the information ministry will
have the power to “approve” them.

This is a direct threat to the freedom of
the media and practically usurps the power of the“editorial institution” of
the media and related freedom of operation. The editors and media personnel
will have no right to use their freedom and creativity in running their channels.
This also gives direct power to the ministry- read bureaucrats and their
political masters- to interfere in the work of the media.

7.3 (put Bangla text)…..

This has been drafted by people who have no
idea how broadcast media works. Imagine every TV channel running to
“appropriate authority” for vetting every advertisement that they will
broadcast. It is as if TV professionals have no “qualification” to judge the appropriateness
of ads and that government bureaucrats, who have no exposure to media’s work
have better “qualification” to judge the content of the said ad.

7.4 (use Bangla)

It says that information ministry will be
the ultimate judge of matters “not covered by this policy” and in all other
matters relating to “other policies and laws” that may be existing that are not
well known. This provision is vague, too sweeping and covers a vast area. Every
ministry and departments may have their own “policy guidelines” which then may
be interpreted by the information ministry in a manner that bureaucracy usually
does, which is against“peoples’ right to know”. This provision will greatly
hamper the work of a free media.

7.5. Use Bangla

This is in no way conducive to free media
freedom.

There is another serious danger that this
policy poses, and one which has not been seriously discussed so far. If such a
policy or something remotely close to it is adopted then our broadcast media
runs the risk of becoming “dull and boring” Devoid of its freedom and chance to
go for creative and entertaining programmes our channels will be producing
programmes that will fail to attract the modern day viewers who are highly mobile
and extremely demanding. This especially true for the young who are the
“digital generation” and has no hesitation to shift their choice from channels
that are boring to those who are more interesting and entertaining.

This will lead to audience shifting from
our local channels to the foreign channels which, as we all know, are
enormously popular in today Bangladesh. In fact our present TV channels have,
in a big way, retrieved much of that shift through their modern programming. Bu
such a policy, as prescribed, will force a switch of viewers which will be
followed by a switch of advertisers. Such a shift will virtually cause a huge
drop in audience and advertising. This may lead to the “slow death”[ of the
local broadcasting industry.

We conclude by saying that we are not
opposed to a Broadcasting policy per se. We want is a law that nurtures freedom
and helps us to grow as a matured industry where maximum public service can be
rendered while upholding the highest ethical standards of an ethical and free
media.

To get such a law we think-as does the
associations of journalists, association of broadcasters and others-that we
should first have an Independent Broadcasting Commission that should frame a
new law with the stakeholders as partners and not as victims.

Form the Independent Commission immediately
and let it formulate the policy. Government has put the cart before the horse.
In the end we say what we said at the start, government can throttle the media
for the present, but free media will win in the end.

Mahfuz Anam is a celebrated editor of prestigious newsapaper The Daily Star and General Secretary of Bangladesh Editors Council